Police Chief to Meet with ICE about Potential Raids in San Jose

San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia (right) and Mayor Sam Liccardo have repeatedly stated that the city will not assist in federal immigration enforcement efforts. (Photo by Greg Ramar)

Rumors of federal deportation raids sweeping through San Jose last week had residents on edge, as city officials went scurrying on fruitless fact-finding missions. The rumors turned out to be just that, wasting precious city resources in the face of damaging storms. In an effort to get some clarity on what President Trump’s plan is for the 10th biggest city in the nation, San Jose police Chief Eddie Garcia told Fly that he reached out to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and they’ll meet Wednesday in their new Morgan Hill headquarters. Garcia said he’ll not only ask whether San Jose’s immigrant communities will be targeted, but also plans to tell ICE that the city has no intention of joining the 287(g) program being aggressively shopped to local departments. The program basically deputizes police officers to assist in immigration enforcement, and so far the only California law enforcement agency to sign up is the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Garcia, who joined Mayor Sam Liccardo in reassuring residents the city won’t help federal deportation efforts, added that SJPD is short-staffed but that’s not the point. “Even if I had 10,000 officers, we wouldn't be a part of the 287(g) program,” he said. While that may seem clear, direction from the highest levels of government remains disturbingly opaque. Earlier this month in Washington, D.C., San Jose’s top cop attended the Major Cities Chiefs conference, where he took part in a group discussion with Gen. John F. Kelly, the new secretary of Homeland Security. Garcia said that even the secretary couldn’t provide a clear definition of what constitutes a “sanctuary city,” before telling the chiefs he doesn't want them “doing things that don't make sense for the community.” Ironically, ICE’s new headquarters in Morgan Hill don’t make sense for that community, as the facility is not permitted by the city to operate as a detention center.

Furthermore, I believe that the position Chief Garcia has taken with respect to assisting ICE runs contrary to the oath he took all the way back when he was first sworn as a police officer, specifically to support and defend the Constitution of the United States to which he as a police officer and public official owes ultimate allegiance. The same is true of Sam Liccardo and the entirety of San Jose’s City Council along with Sheriff Laurie Smith and the entirety of the SCC Board of Supervisors, all of whom are required under the CA State Constitution to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. (By extension, this is also true at the state level and any attempt to make California a ‘sanctuary state’ on the part of sworn state officials puts them in violation of their oaths of office).

…to support and defend the Constitution of the United States to which he as a police officer and public official owes ultimate allegiance. The same is true of Sam Liccardo and the entirety of San Jose’s City Council along with Sheriff Laurie Smith and the entirety of the SCC Board of Supervisors, all of whom are required under the CA State Constitution to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Didn’t you know, officer? They had their fingers crossed behind their backs!

That had to be it. Otherwise, President Trump’s Attorney General could charge them with violating their oath of office, and remand them for trial in a federal District court.

Then the whole world could watch as they tried to tap-dance around the charges.

President Trump, too, swore an oath of office requiring him to, among other things, support and defend the US Constitution. In his case, as the Chief Executive of the entire United States, he was practically REQUIRED to issue his travel ban, something Barack Obama and various of his predecessors would have done well to recognize.

President Trump, too, swore an oath of office requiring him to, among other things, support and defend the US Constitution. In his case, as the Chief Executive of the entire United States, he was practically REQUIRED to issue his travel ban, something Barack Obama and various of his predecessors would have done well to recognize.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to set immigration policy which it has done, most recently under the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act. Firstly, there is a specific annual limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants. Secondly, the Act *EXCLUDES* from eligibility for permanent immigration various classes of persons including criminals, terrorists, and anyone who gives any form of support to – or is affiliated in any way with – terrorism. These, along with the other exclusions set forth in this part of the Constitution *requires* effective and comprehensive screening of *anyone* who enters the United States for any reason. (Incidentally, anyone who is determined to be likely to become a public charge is also excluded from consideration for permanent residence, which could precluded a great many refugees along with vast swaths of immigrants from ‘developing’ (Third World) nations.

Thirdly, President Trump Swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article 2, Section 3 requires that the President “…shall take care that the Laws (of the United States) be faithfully executed”. Needless to say, this includes the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which means that President Trump is personally charged with seeing that criminals, terrorists and others excluded from entry do not, in fact, gain entry to the United States. By issuing his temporary travel ban, President Trump was meticulously and specifically adhering to his oath of office, the Constitution of the United States and the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

By disregarding lawful requests from the federal government to hold illegal immigrants, Sam Liccardo, Eddie Garcia and many many others place themselves in violation of both the law and their personal oaths of office.

My Question To OfficerAnonymous,
Has the Chief, Mayor, or City Council issued any direct orders under threat of discipline or termination to the police DP
not to enforce or to evade the law or Federal Law officers? This would put the city into direct conflict with the Federal Government and threaten our officers by putting them in conflict with Federal Law.

I have been retired for a few years, so I cannot speak to current policies in effect. However, I will note that the verbage in the oaths of office public officials AND police officers (and, indeed, all sworn law enforcement officials) take is quite specific: “uphold and defend”. These verbs are both active AND indefinite in nature. My personal read on this is that these constitute an ongoing obligation to take an active role in the support of the rule of law

Was that oath specific to the city county and state or to national law as well?
The oath I took was to defend the Constitution and Country from all enemies foreign or domestic.
Nobody said I was to stop when I left.

Interestingly, and I think I made my case for this above, it precludes involvement with organizations such as La Raza.

As well, there is no ‘sunset clause’ for the oath I, the chief or the mayor et. al. took. We are all required, on our honor, to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” until we are no longer able to do so.

Very similar indeed with the addition of the state as well. I wonder if belonging to La Raza would disqualify any public official from holding such an office. Would it be in La Raza’s charter to over through the State of California or the United States in order to return it to Mexican control?

Nothing as overt as a formal directive is generally made forbidding the lawful enforcement of politically unpopular laws. Here is how it works here; the source is a former POA representative who had to defend an officer who engaged in doing his duty contrary to a whispered, yet well understood, decree of a despotic police administration.

Officer X arrested a suspect who was obviously, provably, an illegal alien who had committed a violent felony against another “immigrationally handicapped” suspect. Officer X, knowing full well what the “informal” department policy was, nonetheless took the initiative and called ICE on his own by using his own cell phone. ICE then did what ICE does.

Word of this “wildcat” operation got back. Those who wished to endear themselves to the chief initiated disciplinary action; the Duty Manual easily malleable to fit any situation. Threatened with discipline, Officer X contacted the POA for representation. The Department made the officer’s life “miserable-by-process” but ultimately backed off formal discipline, when threatened with exposure to objective, visible review.

Officer X was also soon transferred (by administrative discretion) out of a Specialized Unit assignment; denied other opportunities; and was administratively tormented in ways too lengthy to explain here. Once word got out, other officers (particularly those with any career aspirations or who were dependent on easily disallowed discretionary paid overtime (having their work permit pulled at the chief’s discretion) avoided this “mistake” and the illegal non-enforcement policy was implemented with complete deniability.

The POA representative involved tried to secure a waiver to release, for potential publication, the attempted formal discipline file and other details. However, his sanity was questioned and the matter
was dropped. The involved officer, ground down by the process, also just wanted to be left alone.
That’s how it works.

Thank you JR.
Your description is very close to the treatment an old friend of mine described by another PD far far away. He’s retired now and even fears his pension could be messed with if the incident is mentioned in public.
Needless to say that same city was recently involved in the largest mass shooting in US history recently.
Not that I would name names Or anything.

What the Koran says about the virtues of committing violence in the name of Islam:

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”

What the Koran says about those who do not believe in Islam:

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

What the Koran says about Christians and Jews and people of other faiths:

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

What the Koran and other Islamic scriptures say about homosexuals:

Quran (4:16) – “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone”

Abu Dawud (4462) – The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”.

al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – [Muhammad said] “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”

“In 2016, an educated imam in Tunisia explained that while it may seem harsh, there is not ambiguity about this in Islam:
God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Quran”

What the Koran says about womens’ equality:

Quran (4:11) – (Inheritance) “The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females”

Quran (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…” (This means that a woman has the same value to a man as the land that he owns)

And Quran (4:24) and Quran (33:50) establish that women may be taken as sex slaves outside of marriage

So,explain to audiences at home exactly how it is bigoted to assert that we should be sure that we are not allowing into our country the kinds of people who would espouse and practice the kinds of bigotry and violence enshrined in the Koran and other Islamic religious texts?

As an aside, the 9th Circuit Court – which, at 80%, is the most overturned court in the nation – in its decision against President Trump’s travel ban ignored the 1889 US Supreme Court Case ‘Chae Chan Ping v. United States’ which, among other things, determined that immigration laws are plenary matters shared exclusively by the legislative and executive branches and are therefore “not questions for judicial determination”. This decision means that there is NO COURT in the nation which has the Constitutional authority to examine or adjudicate immigration law. Part of the reason for this is that Foreign Nationals have no Constitutional protections of any kind when they are on foreign soil. Another reason is that some of the reasons for setting immigration policy are classified which means that judges cannot make an informed ruling on immigration policy as relates to national security since they only receive classified information on an ad hoc basis.

As a further aside, we must recognize that the Koran and the practice of Sharia Law governs ALL aspects of the individual practitioner’s life: religious, civic AND political. As such, I believe one could make a compelling argument that Islam is the very embodiment of totalitarian belief and, as such the adherents of Islam absolutely CAN be barred from entry into the United States both because non-citizens on foreign soil absolutely DO NOT enjoy constitutional protections of any kind – including First Amendment protections – AND because the Immigration and Naturalization Act continues to exclude those who espouse totalitarianism of any kind.

“Even if I had 10,000 officers, we wouldn’t be a part of the 287(g) program”

Chief Garcia didn’t really need to say this, as it has been made clear that even if illegals tripled the crime rate this traitor to his profession would stand with the illegals and let the legal residents of his city absorb the damage, just as he and others like him have allowed illegals to rape the public treasury with their voracious demands for services they do not deserve.

The raids will never happen because the Democrat elite will oppose anything that could take their gardner’s, nanny’s, housekeeper’s, and kitchen help away, whom they pay less a wage to than if it were a citizen. Such hypocrites to make this some social issue.

What Officer Anonymous describes in detail above is the rule of law, which the Democrats, progressives and snowflakes choose to honor only when it conforms to their personal beliefs, but to disregard when it does not conform to their personal beliefs. Their view is the definition of disavowal of the rule of law. What would this country be like if we could pick and choose which laws we would obey, and ignore the laws we didn’t like? Well, if the Democrats, progressives and snowflakes regain control, we’ll soon find out, to our dismay.